The universe according to MMM

[MultiMillionMiler]

3.@Scott, a collision with oncoming traffic.

Wouldn't there have to be oncoming traffic to collide with for that to happen?

And there is, obviously, or they would have only built the road in one direction.

[US 89]

Because I can't find that anyone ever resolved the physics problem...

If I remember this right (it's been a while, and the type of physics I use these days is way more advanced ) two cars going the same speed in opposite directions that collide and both come to a complete stop will only experience the same force if they have the same mass. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. In a collision, both cars will rapidly decelerate to zero very quickly (say, in a second). Assuming they take the same amount of time to stop after the collision, their accelerations are the same, but the forces exerted to get them to stop will only be equal if their masses are equal.

In other words, if your car is heavier, it has more momentum, and as a result it takes more force to stop it.

[Amaury]

I don't know much about physics myself, but the wording I've often seen used in news articles when referring to head-on collisions is something along the lines of "two vehicles crashed into each other at a combined speed of 100 MPH." (100 MPH being an example combined speed.)

[Roadgeekteen]

3.@Scott, a collision with oncoming traffic.

Wouldn't there have to be oncoming traffic to collide with for that to happen?

And there is, obviously, or they would have only built the road in one direction.

There is so little though that any driver with even a little bit of driving knowledge should be able to avoid oncoming driver.

[Amaury]

I mean, even with the best driving, sometimes there is literally nothing you can do, such as was the case with my non-injury collision in December 2018, where a driver cut me off to turn into, I think, Burger King here. Damage for me was the right side of the front bumper, and for him was the right side of his car since I T-boned him. I slammed on my brakes and laid on the horn, but the car we had had no ABS, so the wheels locked, and at the time, we had our studded snow tires on.

[Scott5114]

3.@Scott, a collision with oncoming traffic.

Wouldn't there have to be oncoming traffic to collide with for that to happen?

And there is, obviously, or they would have only built the road in one direction.

Nope, sorry, that's wrong.

[kphoger]

Why would I go through the trouble to blank my ballet?

How, exactly, does one blank his ballet?

I don't know much about physics myself, but the wording I've often seen used in news articles when referring to head-on collisions is something along the lines of "two vehicles crashed into each other at a combined speed of 100 MPH." (100 MPH being an example combined speed.)

Yeah, the entire collision had a combined speed of 100 mph, I suppose (someone with more physics knowledge, please confirm or deny).  But there were two cars involved.  Each one felt half the force, i.e. 50 mph (assuming they were both going 50 mph and had equal size and mass).

[Scott5114]

Why would I go through the trouble to blank my ballet?

How, exactly, does one blank his ballet?

Get on stage and forget the dance, I imagine.

[Roadgeekteen]

I mean, even with the best driving, sometimes there is literally nothing you can do, such as was the case with my non-injury collision in December 2018, where a driver cut me off to turn into, I think, Burger King here. Damage for me was the right side of the front bumper, and for him was the right side of his car since I T-boned him. I slammed on my brakes and laid on the horn, but the car we had had no ABS, so the wheels locked, and at the time, we had our studded snow tires on.

Were you driving on US 93 in Nevada? I'm talking about that road in particular.

[kalvado]

Why would I go through the trouble to blank my ballet?

How, exactly, does one blank his ballet?

I don't know much about physics myself, but the wording I've often seen used in news articles when referring to head-on collisions is something along the lines of "two vehicles crashed into each other at a combined speed of 100 MPH." (100 MPH being an example combined speed.)

Yeah, the entire collision had a combined speed of 100 mph, I suppose (someone with more physics knowledge, please confirm or deny).  But there were two cars involved.  Each one felt half the force, i.e. 50 mph (assuming they were both going 50 mph and had equal size and mass).

Now imagine that oncoming car is a loaded 18-wheeler tandem

[Hobart]

3. Australia has other things I don't like, but yes, mandatory voting is wrong. If that ever came to be, since Me and my dad have similar views on this, we would simply both vote for the opposite candidate, guaranteeing a 0 net effect on the outcome. If every single voter makes such a difference, I would rather them use that energy to mandate universal organ donation, something that can actually help people, should not have an opt-out option, and far too few people do.

This is rather naive. Australia has multiple political parties, rather than two. You would need to get large groups of people to collectively vote once for each candidate... and even then, you're affecting any other candidates who are being written in, so you're voting anyways.

Also, laws are passed by Congress, including any form of organ donation acts. Guess who you vote for? Congresspeople! You'd need to vote for people to get any of your ideas in office, but you don't like voting. Therefore, don't have any ideas, because they won't be implemented if you refuse to vote for people who support them!

Making organ donation mandatory with no opt-out options at all could also be unconstitutional; if it is not allowed under a minor religion, and those people are not allowed to opt out of it, you're violating the first amendment and their rights to follow such religion.

[Roadgeekteen]

3. Australia has other things I don't like, but yes, mandatory voting is wrong. If that ever came to be, since Me and my dad have similar views on this, we would simply both vote for the opposite candidate, guaranteeing a 0 net effect on the outcome. If every single voter makes such a difference, I would rather them use that energy to mandate universal organ donation, something that can actually help people, should not have an opt-out option, and far too few people do.

This is rather naive. Australia has multiple political parties, rather than two. You would need to get large groups of people to collectively vote once for each candidate... and even then, you're affecting any other candidates who are being written in, so you're voting anyways.

Also, laws are passed by Congress, including any form of organ donation acts. Guess who you vote for? Congresspeople! You'd need to vote for people to get any of your ideas in office, but you don't like voting. Therefore, don't have any ideas, because they won't be implemented if you refuse to vote for people who support them!

Making organ donation mandatory with no opt-out options at all could also be unconstitutional; if it is not allowed under a minor religion, and those people are not allowed to opt out of it, you're violating the first amendment and their rights to follow such religion.

I do agree that it should be opt-out instead of opt-in.

[Scott5114]

Also, laws are passed by Congress, including any form of organ donation acts. Guess who you vote for? Congresspeople! You'd need to vote for people to get any of your ideas in office, but you don't like voting. Therefore, don't have any ideas, because they won't be implemented if you refuse to vote for people who support them!

Yep, politicians see policy proposals through the lens of "How will this affect my election?" If they know you aren't going to vote for them, they don't really care what your opinion is.

[MultiMillionMiler]

3. Australia has other things I don't like, but yes, mandatory voting is wrong. If that ever came to be, since Me and my dad have similar views on this, we would simply both vote for the opposite candidate, guaranteeing a 0 net effect on the outcome. If every single voter makes such a difference, I would rather them use that energy to mandate universal organ donation, something that can actually help people, should not have an opt-out option, and far too few people do.

This is rather naive. Australia has multiple political parties, rather than two. You would need to get large groups of people to collectively vote once for each candidate... and even then, you're affecting any other candidates who are being written in, so you're voting anyways.

Also, laws are passed by Congress, including any form of organ donation acts. Guess who you vote for? Congresspeople! You'd need to vote for people to get any of your ideas in office, but you don't like voting. Therefore, don't have any ideas, because they won't be implemented if you refuse to vote for people who support them!

Making organ donation mandatory with no opt-out options at all could also be unconstitutional; if it is not allowed under a minor religion, and those people are not allowed to opt out of it, you're violating the first amendment and their rights to follow such religion.

The rights of the living people who need them are more important. The needs of actual living people should be prioritized over what people who have passed away would have wanted. It no longer affects them in any way. But at the bare minimum, it should be opt out instead of opt-in.

[Roadgeekteen]

3. Australia has other things I don't like, but yes, mandatory voting is wrong. If that ever came to be, since Me and my dad have similar views on this, we would simply both vote for the opposite candidate, guaranteeing a 0 net effect on the outcome. If every single voter makes such a difference, I would rather them use that energy to mandate universal organ donation, something that can actually help people, should not have an opt-out option, and far too few people do.

This is rather naive. Australia has multiple political parties, rather than two. You would need to get large groups of people to collectively vote once for each candidate... and even then, you're affecting any other candidates who are being written in, so you're voting anyways.

Also, laws are passed by Congress, including any form of organ donation acts. Guess who you vote for? Congresspeople! You'd need to vote for people to get any of your ideas in office, but you don't like voting. Therefore, don't have any ideas, because they won't be implemented if you refuse to vote for people who support them!

Making organ donation mandatory with no opt-out options at all could also be unconstitutional; if it is not allowed under a minor religion, and those people are not allowed to opt out of it, you're violating the first amendment and their rights to follow such religion.

The rights of the living people who need them are more important. The needs of actual living people should be prioritized over what people who have passed away would have wanted. It no longer affects them in any way. But at the bare minimum, it should be opt out instead of opt-in.

You know, you have a point. Still would violate the 1st amendment however.

[MultiMillionMiler]

M3 has posted so much crap that I (thankfully, or maybe regrettably) missed that one.

Isn't "MMM" easier to type than "M cubed"? It's funny enough that people use acronyms for everything but seriously now even 3 letters is too much to type LOL

[US 89]

M³ takes 13 characters to type. We’re too lazy for that.

[Scott5114]

I can do M³ in four keystrokes. (Shift+M, then Compose, ^, 3)

[Amaury]

Were you driving on US 93 in Nevada? I'm talking about that road in particular.

Not a state I've been to yet, so no. LOL I didn't realize you were talking about a particular highway.

[webny99]

I would be comfortable with using this post as an indicator of intent in making a forum management decision. Just saying.

If that decision could be moving this thread, that would be GREAT. 

I think it's another decision. That might be even more GREAT!

I disagree. Getting this thread to fictional is much more important to the forum right now than any sort of decision about MMM's status.

[kirbykart]

This thread was started on December 21st and already has 74 (default 25-post) pages.

[webny99]

Good thing this is the internet and not real life, because 68 days is way too long to be waiting for an air ambulance.

[kphoger]

I don't know much about physics myself, but the wording I've often seen used in news articles when referring to head-on collisions is something along the lines of "two vehicles crashed into each other at a combined speed of 100 MPH." (100 MPH being an example combined speed.)

Yeah, the entire collision had a combined speed of 100 mph, I suppose (someone with more physics knowledge, please confirm or deny).  But there were two cars involved.  Each one felt half the force, i.e. 50 mph (assuming they were both going 50 mph and had equal size and mass).

Now imagine that oncoming car is a loaded 18-wheeler tandem

The car would still experience less than 100 mph in the collision.  More than 50 mph, certainly, but less than 100 mph.

If you want to get to 100 mph experienced by one of the parties, then you'd need something like a dragonfly hitting the front bumper of a turnpike double, and both going 50 mph head-on.  The dragonfly would experience 100 mph, and the trucker would experience nothing.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would be comfortable with using this post as an indicator of intent in making a forum management decision. Just saying.

If that decision could be moving this thread, that would be GREAT. 

I think it's another decision. That might be even more GREAT!

I disagree. Getting this thread to fictional is much more important to the forum right now than any sort of decision about MMM's status.

It's not a big deal where this shit is, at least for registered members.

[LilianaUwU]

This thread should be renamed to Alanland II, it already reached absurdity levels way beyond the original Alanland thread.